Editor’s Note: The following remarks made by Regent Deane Baker at the Sept. 23, 1993, Regents’ meeting are reprinted here at his request.
Regent Deane Baker’s Remarks to
the University of Michigan Board of Regents,
Sept. 23, 1993, in Ann Arbor, Michigan,
objecting to inclusion of sexual orientation
in Regents’ Bylaw 14.06.
University of Michigan Regents Laurence B. Deitch and Rebecca McGowan (Deitch/McGowan) supported by President Duderstadt, Provost Whitaker and a committee of deans have proposed the phrase “sexual orientation” be included in Regental Bylaw Sec. 14.06 which presently states:
The University is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for all persons regardless of race, sex, color, religion, creed, national origin or ancestry, age, marital status, disability, or Vietnam era veteran status. It shall exert its leadership for the achievement of this goal by all parties with which the University transacts business, which it recognizes, or with which students or employees of the University are involved.
Few issues in recent University history have been as contentious as efforts by campus homosexual/lesbian organizations, their leaders, University officers and other supporters to modify Bylaw 14.06.
Recent Background
The first formal effort to include the phrase “Sexual Orientation” in the Regents’ Bylaws was undertaken by a University group called Lesbian and Gay Rights on Campus (LaGROC) at the Regents’ meeting of March of 1984.
The Regents did not vote to make the Bylaw change. Rather, then-President Shapiro published a “Presidential Policy on Sexual Orientation.” That policy was reaffirmed by the Regents in 1988.
The secret process preceding the call for the Bylaw change
Regents Deitch/McGowan were supported by various homosexual/lesbian groups in their successful statewide campaigns for Regental office. They initiated discussions early on to change Bylaw 14.06 with University officials including President Duderstadt and Provost Whitaker.
Earlier a committee of deans chaired by Law School Dean Bollinger had undertaken a study of how to improve the University climate for homosexual/lesbian faculty members.
The idea and procedure for Bylaw changes were discussed between Regents Deitch/McGowan and Dean Bollinger. A proposed Bylaw change and the associated motion was forwarded to the president who referred the matter to University Counsel Cole who obtained a confirming legal opinion from a Washington, D.C., law firm. The legal opinion was dated July 16, 1993.
It was only upon my request that University counsel provided me a copy of the legal opinion after I learned of its existence a few days ago.
The president and the executive officers informally reviewed the proposed Bylaw change and forwarded it to the provost where the language and form were finalized with Regents Deitch/McGowan.
To my knowledge, the other six Regents were given only one week’s notice of the proposed change, the minimum time required in the Bylaws. Normally, proposed Bylaw changes are published Universitywide before regental action to allow broad-based University comment.
President Duderstadt waived the publishing requirement in this case.
No notice was given to the public of the proposed change until yesterday, Sept. 23, 1993.
In early August, Regent Deitch indicated to me his intention to submit a Bylaw change to the Regents sometime in the future, but I was unaware of the secret activity noted herein.
Sadly, it appears Regents Deitch/McGowan and the administration worked in concert, ignoring due process and the normal courtesy of early and complete notice to the Regents of [a] proposed Bylaw change. Further, most faculty, employees and students were denied the right to comment on an important policy change.
Present University policy
The University’s present policies seek to prevent discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians. The Regents have not included “sexual orientation” in the Bylaws primarily because discrimination claimed by homosexuals/lesbians is quite different than, for example, skin color or sex.
Recently, the highly respected Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the United States Military Forces, pointedly noted the difference between discrimination based on sexual orientation and skin color when responding to a reporter, saying, “They aren’t the same.”
At Michigan, all qualified individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, are recruited for employment, regularly promoted, receive equal pay and the usual University benefits without discrimination by the University.
The homosexual/lesbian organizations are a substantial force on the campus and have effected major policy initiatives.
Many support organizations for homosexuals/lesbians exist on the campus, including LaGROC and the recently formed Social Group for U.O.M. Bisexual Men. The Lesbian-Gay Male Programs Office is University-funded.
Such groups are active advocates for their constituency and significantly affect Uni-versity policy.
For example, parents of University students should understand that some freshman summer orientation sessions are directed by homosexual men and lesbian women who confront students about the student’s opinion of homosexual/lesbian lifestyles seeking to change their views.
If the student lives in the dormitory system, strict dormitory rules govern what may be said about homosexual/lesbian lifestyles. No related criticism or negative comments are permitted. Students face a range of punishment for violations of the policy, including, in extreme cases, denial of dormitory residence.
Personal objection to being housed with a homosexual or a lesbian roommate is not cause for change of roommate under University regulations.
In the classroom, if the student makes any criticism or comment interpreted as objectionable to homosexuals or lesbians, that student is subject to punishment, which can include expulsion under the Code of Student Conduct.
University religious groups are alarmed about effects of the proposed Bylaw change
University religious groups have expressed serious concern about the effect of the Regents Deitch/McGowan Bylaw change on their constitutional prerogatives, including freedom of association, religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Mr. Steven T. McFarland, director, Center for Law & Religious Freedom, on behalf of their chapter at the University of Michigan Law School, has submitted a comment letter to the Regents expressing his serious reservations about the effects proposed Bylaw change suggesting that:
“The proposed addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to the Regents’ Bylaw, without a religious conscience exemption, will generate conflict with the rights of U-M students (and employees) under the U.S. and Michigan state Constitutions.
“As applied to expression and association of religious persons on campus, the Regents’ Bylaw prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation serves no compelling state interests, infringes state and federal constitutional guarantees, and unduly burdens the free exercise of religion. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Board of Regents exempt from the Regents’ Bylaw on Discrimination all private speech and association, particularly that which is religious in content or motivation.”
The proposed Bylaw change negates regental authority
Once the Bylaw is passed, the president is authorized to name a committee which will study implementation of the “Sexual Orientation” clause into University life. The committee will then report to the president who will direct that their recommendations be put into place. The recent experience of how this proposed amendment came into being clearly demonstrates the administration’s intent to fully follow the committee’s recommendations.
Further, there is little evidence to indicate that the administration would long resist the very strong political pressures which have characterized the conduct of homosexual/lesbian organizations at the University of Michigan.
The president and executive officers have, over the years, expanded the scope of their policies with regard to control of speech and conduct of University students, employees and others.
I have long argued, unsuccessfully, that these policies restrict both freedom of speech and freedom to practice one’s religion by non-homosexual/lesbian students.
The real issue
Alleged discrimination is not the real issue, but rather the establishment in the Bylaws of the concept of “equivalency” of homosexual/lesbian sexual practices and lifestyle as equal to and acceptable as heterosexual sexual practices and lifestyle.
A recent group effort to include “equivalency” in the curriculum, in all grades of the Ann Arbor Public Schools, included representatives from the University. Part of the proposed change was to teach the children, including those in early grades, that anal sex and other homosexual/lesbian sexual practices are of the same societal value as heterosexual sexual practices. After prolonged public protest the curriculum change was abandoned.
Why stand against “equivalency”
People often ask why I raise objection to these and other policies rather than remain silent. The answer is quite simple.
The future of our society is at risk when its historical religious, moral and ethical bases are under attack as they are today. The structure of the family is being crushed by crime, drugs, sexual permissiveness, abortion, denial of parental authority, pornography and destruction of traditional values. This discussion of the Bylaw change is only one aspect of that great decline.
Dennis Prager, a prominent and respected California commentator, who writes from the Jewish perspective, publishes a quarterly journal titled Ultimate Issues. In his April–June 1990 issue, he writes thoughtfully and sympathetically about homosexuality.
In the epilogue to his commentary Prager writes:
“The creation of Western civilization has been a terribly difficult and unique thing. It took constant delaying of gratification, and a rechanneling of natural instincts; and these disciplines have not always been well received. There have (been) numerous attempts to undo Judeo-Christian civilization, not infrequently by Jews (through radical politics) and Christians (through anti-semitism).
“And the bedrock of this civilization, and Jewish life, of course, has been the centrality and purity of family life. But the family is not a natural unit so much as it is a value that must be cultivated and protected. The Greeks assaulted the family in the name of beauty and Eros. The Marxists assaulted the family in the name of progress. And, today, gay liberation assaults it in the name of compassion and equality. I understand why gays would do this. Life has been miserable for many of them.
“What I have not understood was why Jews or Christians would join the assault. I do now. They do not know what is at stake. At stake is our civilization (emphasis added). It is very easy to forget what Judaism has wrought and what Christians have created in the West. But those who loathe this civilization never forget. The radical Stanford University faculty and students who recently chanted ‘Hey, hey, ho, ho Western civ has got to go,’ were referring to much more than their university’s syllabus.
“And no one is chanting that song more forcefully than those who believe and advocate that sexual behavior doesn’t play a role in building or eroding civilization.
“The acceptance of homosexuality as the equal of heterosexual married love signifies the decline of Western civilization as surely as the rejection of homosexuality and non-marital sex made the creation of this civilization possible.” (Emphasis added.)
